About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
not only a lost opportunity domestically. the foreign policy of this also. the most interesting thing that reagan did early on in foreign policy was the air traffic controller strike and toughness at times at home have repercussions aboeroad. this story got lost because of the boston bombings. >> but helps new awax. you only have to send that message once or twice to have one person go back and go, he is crazy. you know what he just told me? he said he was going to destroy me. >> what the president, what president obama, for reasons not only to him and his nature, clearly does not do or cannot do is something that lyndon johnson did do and this story has been repeated too many times for it not to be apockrifal. frank church a senator from idaho opposed senator johnson on an element of vietnam policy and another senator, i forget which one, wanted a line in an appropriations bill for a dam in his state. and he was on the fence with regard to lyndon johnson's view on vietnam policy. he called the president specifically asking, i need this. kou help me get it? and the president of the un
the implications here in terms of foreign policy and possibly national security and how the white house responds in the coming days. first before we do that, i want to play some sound from dzhokah tsarnaev's uncle who came and spoke to the press earlier this morning, talking about check nia, the checken identity in the united states, let's play a little of that sound. >> hatred to those who were able to settle themselves. these are the only reasons i can imagine of. anything else, anything else to do with religion, with islam, that's a fraud. it's a fake. >> "the new york times" white house correspondent, peter baker is with us. peter, thanks for joining us, you were the moscow bureau chief for four years and covered the second chechen war. a lot of folks in america are hearing the word chechnya for the first time and don't understand the dynamics between chechnya, russia and the united states. can you give us a little primer about the sort of tumult in the region? >> it's a good question. we're learning a lot today, a lot of americans haven't focused on what has been chilling situation for many
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques that employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions that the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture, then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of, like waterboarding, stress and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in it his opinion it relies not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is in important context as to how the penny came about but also how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the avai
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)